Applicant seeks to modify special permit at 163–165 Pine Street, asks board to accept as‑built parking and drop one unit

Attorney Christine Tree, representing MHG 3 Fund LLC and applicant Jonathan Bombacci, asked the Gardner City Zoning Board of Appeals on July 15 to accept a modified site plan for 163–165 Pine Street that would recognize an as‑built parking layout, reduce the building’s permitted apartments by one and allow construction work to proceed with a revised plan.

Tree told the board the property was reconstructed after a fire and granted an eight‑unit special permit in February, but the contractor did not build the parking lot exactly to the plan that was incorporated in the special permit. “We presented this in the difficulties of the pandemic. It was approved,” Tree said, summarizing the project’s history and the change now before the board.

The applicant’s current submission shows 10 total parking spaces rather than the 11 shown on the original approved plan: nine at the rear plus two “buddy” tandem spaces counted as two in the overall total. Tree said the revision would reduce the number of dwelling units to seven and asked the board for relief from three items she identified on the McKenzie plan submitted July 10: a reduction in the required sideline setback, relief from the required 24‑foot maneuvering aisle where the plan shows roughly 18½ feet, and acceptance of the net loss of one parking space.

Board members examined plan details in the meeting: the location and dimensions of the new angular Space 8 at the rear, the position of a protected tree and a proposed bump‑out in the north retaining wall, bollard positions that affect maneuvering space, and a proposal to pave an area between Space 8 and the front “buddy” spaces to give more turning room. Tree said the applicant stands ready to apply for the necessary building permit for retaining‑wall work if property ownership and survey stakes confirm the line where the buddy spaces are located.

Several board members pressed the applicant for more precise information before a decision: a stamped survey or stake‑out of the siding line that will determine whether the buddy spaces lie on the applicant’s land; a contour or regrading plan showing how much fill will be placed behind a jersey barrier at the toe of the hill; and a lighting plan showing how the rear parking area will be illuminated without spilling onto neighboring properties. The board also required clearer written confirmation of how the developer will take a unit out of service to meet the proposed seven‑unit count; Tree said the applicant would “decommission the kitchen,” remove appliances and pull wiring back to the panel as needed and that the building department would inspect to confirm compliance.

Tree said a site surveyor had been contracted and would stake the line before construction begins; she and the applicant agreed the building department’s review and the requirement for a building permit would act as a stopgap to prevent construction on another party’s land if the stake‑out showed the buddy spaces off the applicant’s parcel.

Because multiple technical clarifications remained, the board voted to continue the public hearing. The board and applicant agreed the updated plan should be filed and posted promptly; the hearing was continued to a date to be determined no later than July 28, 2025.